The Military Unpreparedness of the United States (Barnes & Noble Digital Library)

By Frederic L. Huidekoper

This 1915 work of historical analysis, written in the midst of World War I, argues that the United States has left military preparedness to chance, leading to unnecessary loss of blood and treasure. He covers American martial history since colonial times with a blunt voice and provides a blueprint for how the military should be organized.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Barnes & Noble
• Release date: Oct 11, 2011
• ISBN: 9781411459946

Book preview

THE MILITARY UNPREPAREDNESS OF THE UNITED STATES

FREDERIC L. HUIDEKOPER

This 2011 edition published by Barnes & Noble, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Barnes & Noble, Inc.

122 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10011

ISBN: 978-1-4114-5994-6

AUTHOR'S PREFACE

Upon the author's return from Europe at the end of November 1914, after an absence of two and a half months spent in France, England, Holland and Germany, he was gratified to see an awakening of the interest of the American public in the necessity for adequate national defence, which he had been striving for nearly nine years to arouse. This interest, stimulated by the war which has involved a large part of the civilized world, gave such unmistakable evidences of being more than superficial, and so numerous and earnest were the inquiries which he received from all over the United States during the month of December 1914, as to the condition of our land forces and what ought to be done to strengthen them, that he resolved, during January 1915, to set forth the facts concerning the military policy pursued by the United States since Revolutionary times. It had at last become apparent that there existed a need for a military history of the United States which gave the unvarnished truth, doubly so since our historians have painted in glowing colours the successes of our former wars but have suppressed with studied care the blunders which have characterised our military policy throughout the past.

Heretofore, the nearest approach to such a history was The Military Policy of the United States by Brevet Major General Emory Upton, United States Army, one of the most masterful works of its sort in any language. General Upton's book only covers the period from 1775 to the end of 1862, is much too technical for the average reader and, moreover, is not available to the general public. The author has taken Upton as his model—exactly as he did in a number of articles on the subject of national defence written during the past nine years¹—and in the present work he has embodied, either in whole or in part, nearly all of the most important paragraphs of that magnum opus. He has, on the other hand, corrected a number of errors discovered in Upton and has incorporated much important matter pertaining to the period from 1775 until the close of 1862 which had completely escaped that writer. The data from the first of January 1863, down to the present day have been collected from a multiplicity of sources and have never before been embodied in a single work. Furthermore, the opposing forces and losses in the principal battles from the beginning of the Revolution to the end of the Philippine War have been compiled with great care from the most authoritative statistics and have been inserted in the footnotes as a useful reference.

In the present history there is scarcely a statement of material fact in the text for which the authorities are not given in the footnotes. Since nothing is more irksome to the average reader than to be confronted at the bottom of every page by a long array of citations, most of these footnotes have been relegated to appendices at the back of the book and subdivided according to the chapters to which they refer. The authorities thus quoted, although necessarily explanatory and supplemental, contain almost as much information as the text itself. The author therefore ventures to suggest that the reader, who is genuinely interested in the subject, should, upon finishing a chapter, turn to the footnotes under that heading and glance through them, even if he does not care to examine them in detail.

This book has been written under high pressure—only five months having elapsed from the beginning to its completion. The author has, however, personally verified every single reference cited—an amount of labour so herculean that it can scarcely be appreciated by any one who has not attempted a similar work. All italics and capitals have been inserted by the present author, unless otherwise specifically stated. In many instances the narrative has been submitted to officials and officers who have played important rôles in the events described. By this precaution much valuable information was gained which could not be gleaned from official documents, and the side-lights of history have been thrown upon occurrences by those who, having been most intimately connected with them, were best qualified to interpret their true significance. It is a source of gratification to be able to record that in no case was any desire encountered to do more than to illustrate and explain the facts which had previously, although at times somewhat hazily, been set forth in official documents.

The final chapter, which treats of the land forces of the United States as they ought to be organized, was submitted, by kind permission of the Chief of Staff, to the Army War College, as the author's purpose was to prevent the views therein expressed from being too greatly at variance with the scheme of organization now in the process of formulation by the War Department. Although the number of corrections made in that chapter was gratifyingly few, the author desires to state emphatically that he alone assumes entire responsibility for the suggestions made and that, under no circumstances, must they be taken to represent—save in the most general way possible—the views of the War Department, the Army War College or the General Staff.

If the author's strictures upon the militia appear to be unduly severe, it must be distinctly borne in mind that he has considered that force purely in the light of a military asset and has endeavoured to ascribe the proper value to it as such. He yields to no one in his appreciation of the high motives which have actuated the militia and volunteers in our past history. The sacrifices that they have made of business and family interests for the purpose of serving their country, and the unrivalled personal courage which they have shown, with few exceptions, cannot be too greatly commended. If, therefore, they have fallen short of the requisite standard that the United States has a right to demand of the troops to which it entrusts its national destinies, the blame must not be laid at the door of these patriotic men individually. The fault lies in the fact that they have always been, and still are, the victims of a most pernicious system, and it is against that system that the author's comments are directed.

The author desires to express his thanks and appreciation to the following officials and officers who have been extremely kind in rendering him valuable assistance in the preparation of this arduous work, namely, the Honorable Lindley M. Garrison, Secretary of War; the Honorable Henry L. Stimson, late Secretary of War; Brigadier General Hugh L. Scott, Chief of Staff, and his assistant, Captain Powell Clayton; Lieutenant-General Nelson A. Miles, M. H.,² formerly commanding the Army; Brigadier General Montgomery M. Macomb, President of the Army War College; Brigadier General Erasmus M. Weaver, Chief of Coast Artillery, and his assistant, Colonel Richmond P. Davis; Brigadier General William Crozier, Chief of Ordnance, and his assistant, Colonel Edwin B. Babbitt; Brigadier General Enoch H. Crowder, Judge Advocate General; Brigadier General Albert L. Mills, M. H., Chief of the Division of Militia Affairs; Lieutenant-Colonel William H. Johnston, Major Charles Crawford and Captain William Mitchell of the General Staff; and to Mr. Graham H. Powell of the Board of Ordnance and Fortification.

The author's heartiest thanks are due in particular to Major General Leonard Wood, M. H.,² former Chief of Staff, not only for the introduction to this work, but for his never-failing kindness and assistance in innumerable other ways; to Brigadier General Henry C. McCain, The Adjutant-General of the Army, and his assistant, Lieutenant-Colonel William M. Wright, who furnished an immense amount of material from the records of The Adjutant-General's Office, without which this history could not have been accurately written; to Lieutenant-General John C. Bates, retired, former Chief of Staff, and the author's uncle, Major General Henry Shippen Huidekoper, M. H., the ranking retired officer of the National Guard of Pennsylvania, both of whom supplied important suggestions about the campaign of Gettysburg. To Major General Joseph P. Sanger, retired, former Inspector General of the Army, the author is quite unable to express the full measure of his appreciation for the invaluable corrections and suggestions in the narrative of the Spanish-American War and its lessons. To Colonel Henry A. du Pont, M. H., the senior Senator from Delaware and former Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs of the Senate, the author is extremely grateful for important material relating to recent military legislation in Congress. To the Honorable Chandler P. Anderson, Special Counsellor of the Department of State, and to Mr. Julian Kennedy of Pittsburgh, the author is indebted for authoritative information in respect to the manufacture of war matériel in case the United States were cut off from certain imports. To Major John R. M. Taylor, retired, the Librarian of the Army War College, and his assistant, Miss Nannie C. Barndollar, the author returns his heartiest thanks for their prompt responses to his frequent requests for important works from that library. To the law firms of Wilson, Huidekoper and Lesh, and Clephane and Clephane, the author is likewise greatly beholden for the use of their law libraries, as well as to Mr. John T. Loomis of W. H. Lowdermilk and Company for the loan of certain rare books treating of American military history. Last, but not least, the author desires to express to his secretary, William O. Davis, his appreciation of the valuable services rendered in the preparation of this difficult manuscript.

If the information contained in this work shall assist to arouse the American people to a realization of the necessity for adequate national defence and shall contribute to bring about the proper strength and organization of the land forces of the United States, the author will consider that he has been amply rewarded for the many arduous hours devoted to this labour of love.

F. L. H.

1614 Eighteenth Street,

Washington, D. C.,

   June 9th, 1915.

INTRODUCTION

In 1907 Mr. Taft, then Secretary of War, said in speaking of a work of Mr. Frederic L. Huidekoper, entitled Is the United States Prepared for War?—that every American who has the defense of his country at heart ought to read Mr. Huidekoper's article. Every one who has read this condensed and able statement can have but one opinion as to its value.

Mr. Huidekoper has just completed a most admirable work dealing with our military history and policy from the beginning of our national history up to the present day. It follows the general lines of that able presentation of these subjects by General Emory Upton in his great work—The Military Policy of the United States. Mr. Huidekoper has endeavored to present these subjects in a rather more condensed form with reference to certain portions of our history, and has greatly amplified them in others through the addition of much new and valuable material. That portion covering the period from the end of the Civil War to the present time is especially valuable, as it embodies a compilation of data not heretofore presented. The references are well arranged, and are in great detail, and the whole work is characterised by good arrangement. This work of Mr. Huidekoper's is one which should be read, and carefully read, by all Americans who are interested in the military history and policy of their country, and who desire to replace our past haphazard policy by one which will be adequate to secure a reasonable degree of preparedness without in any way building up a condition of militarism. Mr. Huidekoper presents with such effectiveness the folly of our past policy and its great and unnecessary expense in life and treasure, that one who reads with an average degree of intelligence cannot escape the conviction that a continuance of the policy of unpreparedness, blindly trusting to chance, which has characterised and dominated our military policy in the past, and a continuance of the methods employed in raising and maintaining armies, can have but one end—national disaster. Our people have forgotten, in the rush and turmoil incident to the development of the national resources and the industries of our great country, the unnecessary cost both in blood and treasure of our past wars, and remember only that somehow or other we emerged from them successfully. Ignorance concerning our military history is universal and profound. Our school histories, whatever their intent, do not give a correct impression of our military history, and say little or nothing about the methods employed in the building up and maintenance of our armies in peace and war. Our children are taught nothing about the dangers of trusting to voluntary service in war, and are told little about the most pernicious of all systems—the bounty system, with its attendant demoralization, desertions and resulting degradation of the individual sense of responsibility for military service. If there is anything which is brought out with special emphasis in connection with modern war it is the necessity of thorough preparation—of a preparation which in its scope recognizes the necessity for the organization of the resources of the nation, in men, money and material, not with a view to having them always ready as a standing army, but with a view to having them ready so that they may become immediately available in case of war, and prepared so that each element of the fighting machine may be well balanced and ready to discharge its particular function. The organization of the military resources of a nation today involves the training of practically the entire male population, through systems of varying intensity and thoroughness, all having as an object the establishment of such a state of training and organization as will render it possible to apply the full military strength of the nation in the minimum time. This may be accomplished under the systems employed by Switzerland and Australia, which I believe are best adapted for our purposes and most in accord with our ideals, or under such a system as that employed by France, where in addition to being ready it is necessary to maintain actually in service a very considerable army. However preparedness is to be brought about, it must be done in time of peace. Not only does this apply to the training of men, but it applies with equal force to the preparation of material, for the weapons of today are infinitely more complicated than those of our fathers. The time necessary to instruct in their use is much greater, and improvements in transportation have enormously reduced the period of an enemy's approach, so that everything now is in the favor, to an extent never before known, of the prepared nation, and the unprepared, unready, pacific country has less chance of successful resistance than ever before. The words of John Adams in his second message—An efficient preparation for war can alone secure peace—may well be heeded by the people of today, and those who have their country's safety at heart may take unto themselves with profit the words of Lord Roberts and make the sentiment they express their own—Strive to stir up, to foster and develop, the manly and patriotic spirit in the nation—the spirit which will induce our youth to realise that they must be not only ready but prepared to guard the heritage handed down to them.

Any one who reads Mr. Huidekoper's book will, I am sure, realize the necessity of following this advice.

Our people must remember that there is nothing in the experience of the past or in the conditions of today which in any way justifies the assumption that wars are past. While we should strive for world peace and endeavor to settle our international difficulties by arbitration, we cannot, unless we are unworthy of the trust handed down to us, fail to make adequate preparation to defend our heritage. We must not forget that there is many a peace which is worse than war. We have never yet waged war single-handed with a first class nation prepared for war. Our people know nothing of what such a struggle means; they have no conception of the effect of the application of well organized and thoroughly prepared military force. A careful perusal of Mr. Huidekoper's work will aid them in reaching sound conclusions as to our needs in the way of military preparedness, and give them many valuable suggestions as to the methods to be adopted to meet them.

CONTENTS

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

I. COLONIAL PERIOD

II. THE WAR OF THE REVOLUTION

III. LESSONS OF THE REVOLUTION

IV. MILITARY POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE END OF THE REVOLUTION UNTIL THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR OF 1812

V. THE WAR OF 1812

VI. MILITARY POLICY FROM THE CLOSE OF THE WAR OF 1812 TO THE BEGINNING OF THE MEXICAN WAR

VII. MILITARY POLICY DURING THE MEXICAN WAR

VIII. MILITARY POLICY FROM THE MEXICAN WAR TO THE WAR OF THE REBELLION

IX. MILITARY UNPREPAREDNESS AND POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES DURING THE WAR OF THE REBELLION

X. MILITARY LEGISLATION AND EVENTS IN 1862

XI. MILITARY LEGISLATION AND EVENTS DURING 1863

XII. MILITARY LEGISLATION AND EVENTS DURING 1864

XIII. MILITARY LEGISLATION AND EVENTS DURING 1865

XIV. LESSONS OF THE WAR OF THE REBELLION AND ITS COST IN MEN AND MONEY

XV. MILITARY POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE WAR OF THE REBELLION TO THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR

XVI. THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR

XVII. LESSONS OF THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR

XVIII. THE PHILIPPINE WAR

XIX. THE LESSONS OF THE PHILIPPINE WAR

XX. THE LESSONS OF OUR PAST WARS

XXI. CITIZEN-SOLDIERY

XXII. MILITARY POLICY, LEGISLATION AND EVENTS FROM 1902 TO JUNE 1, 1915

XXIII. THE CONDITION OF THE LAND FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE BEGINNING OF 1915

XXIV. THE LAND FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AS THEY OUGHT TO BE ORGANIZED

NOTES AND AUTHORITIES

MAPS

Early Campaigns of the Revolutionary War

Washington's Campaigns

Northern Campaigns of the Revolutionary War

Southern Campaigns of the Revolutionary War

War of 1812

War with Mexico

Campaigns in Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania

Grant's Campaigns in the West

Campaigns of Buell and Bragg

Sherman's March to the Sea and Hood's Retreat

Cuba

The Campaign of Santiago de Cuba

The Campaign of Porto Rico

The Philippines

The Operations in Luzon, 1898–1901

The Peking Relief Expedition, 1900

CHAPTER I

COLONIAL PERIOD

IN The Seven Seas, by Rudyard Kipling, there is a poem entitled An American, which contains the following stanza:

"Enslaved, illogical, elate,

He greets th' embarrassed Gods, nor fears

To shake the iron hand of Fate

Or match with Destiny for beers."

These lines, unconsciously perhaps, describe to perfection the nonchalant attitude of the average American toward the United States Army and anything pertaining to the military service. The fruit of this indifference, which has persisted from the beginning of our national career until today—with the exception of a spasmodic interest manifested during threatened or actual war—has been reaped in the most short-sighted, blundering military policy ever pursued in modern times by a great nation of supposedly intelligent people. As a matter of fact, there has existed no real military policy in this country, in the sense of the term as understood elsewhere, and, as a result, the United States was prevented by its weakness from attaining the front rank among the Powers of the world until the autumn of 1898. Even today, our international influence is largely due to causes other than our own strength—causes such as the existing alliances between the leading nations which confer upon the United States an extraordinary position by giving it control of the balance of power, thus investing it with an importance in world politics all out of proportion to the rôle to which it would otherwise be entitled. These facts the ordinary American in nowise realizes, and his ignorance is not in the least surprising. As a child he is taught from school-books, the authors of which have extolled to the skies the prowess of our citizen-soldiery and have painted in glowing colours the brilliancy of American military successes, while they have glossed over or suppressed with studied care the blunders and fearful cost in life and money which have characterised our past wars. As a man, his chief sources of information have been the press and the utterances of men in public life and so-called orators, all feeding him to the point of surfeit with intellectual pabulum on the subject of American invincibility. It is only natural that he has accepted these statements as absolutely true—or at least as well-founded in view of the fact that our wars have all been brought to a victorious issue—and that he has gone on slumbering under a false security in the belief that a system which has been successful in the past must necessarily prevail in the future.

Only those who have delved deep into the subject of our military history and who have studied the question of a military policy—a question so vital to our very national existence—know the truth; the public as a whole has been grossly misinformed and therefore indifferent all these years to our military needs. Our interest has at last been quickened by the gigantic war which has involved nearly half the world, and no man in his senses would now venture to argue that Great Britain and France with a few thousand Regular troops, supplemented by a force of citizen-soldiery however large, could have withstood the onslaught of the mighty German army and driven it back from the very gates of Paris as they have done. Every one realizes that their huge standing armies were taxed to the very utmost and that, had they depended upon anything except Regular troops trained to the highest possible standard, they would have been hopelessly crushed at the start, so that all their volunteers—who require six months of training to render them fit for service in the field—would have availed them nothing. Yet our military organization since the beginning of the Revolution has been moulded upon just such specious arguments as that of placing but small dependence upon our Regular army and of entrusting our destinies in time of war to an untrained citizenry. And, what is more, those arguments still persist.¹

It may, therefore, not be amiss to examine briefly our military history in the past, taking care, as one of the greatest of American military writers, General Upton, has warned us,²

to bear in mind the respective duties and responsibilities of soldiers and statesmen. The latter are responsible for the creation and organization of our resources, and, as in the case of the President, may further be responsible for their management or mismanagement. Soldiers, while they should suggest and be consulted on all the details of organization under our system, can alone be held responsible for the control and direction of our armies in the field.

In order to have an intelligent understanding of the method employed during the Revolution with respect to the fighting men, it must be recollected that the American Colonies possessed no Regular military force; that was supplied by England. Each colony had a force of militia of distinctly uncertain value as a military asset. It contained, however, an admirable nucleus in the shape of some excellent officers and men who had received a thorough schooling in the French and Indian wars. Many of these had participated in such important Colonial operations as the siege of Louisbourg in 1745, the struggle between the French and English for the valley of the Ohio from 1749 to 1758, and in the fighting along the Canadian border. In spite of their repugnance to discipline, they were first-class soldiers, but the majority of the Colonial militia by no means attained such a standard, irrespective of the fact that the frontier conditions of the time developed men who were good shots and unusually self-reliant, for Indian warfare demanded men of special training, exceptional hardiness and extraordinary qualifications.³ The siege of Louisbourg was one of the most astounding feats in the annals of war, excelled perhaps only by Cæsar's capture of Alesia, the more so since one of the mightiest fortifications ever erected capitulated after only six weeks of siege to a motley band of New England farmers and fishermen led by a lumber merchant. The moral effect of this extraordinary achievement on the part of the American colonists was infinitely more far-reaching that at first blush would appear. Of the men who fought at Bunker Hill, many had been at Louisbourg and, when they saw the mud walls that General Gage had erected on Boston Neck and compared them to the mighty ramparts of the French fortress which they had so gallantly captured, they laughed them to scorn. The annihilation of General Braddock's regulars at Fort Duquesne was, in reality, a blessing in disguise for the colonists, insomuch as it shook the prevalent belief in the invincibility of British troops, bred in them a contempt—by no means wholly warranted—for the European method of fighting in close formation, and compelled them to rely entirely upon their own power of fighting instead of trusting supinely to the protecting ægis of England, as they otherwise would unquestionably have done. Indeed, too much stress cannot be laid upon the influence of these factors in strengthening the morale of the American colonists and in confirming them in the belief that they could make a successful opposition to the regulars of Great Britain.⁴

These facts and the absence of a permanent force of Regular troops left the revolting colonies no alternative except to have recourse to such militia as they already possessed, supplemented by whatever recruits presented themselves. The beginning of the Revolutionary War thus inaugurated the system of depending largely upon raw untrained troops, for the very good reason that none others were available, except in paltry numbers.

As early as 1745 there existed in England a suspicion—and in some cases a conviction—that the American colonies were aspiring to independence.⁵ The development of this desire for separation from the mother-country need not be traced here. Suffice to say that, in 1774, several of the colonies began preparations for an armed conflict. The First Continental Congress, proposed the year before by Benjamin Franklin, convened at Philadelphia on September 5th, drew up The Declaration of Rights, concluded The Association, an agreement to refrain from all trade with England until the various objectionable Royal acts had been repealed,⁶ prepared addresses to the People of Great Britain and to the Inhabitants of Canada, and ended by issuing The Petition to the King, in which it rejected all allegiance to Parliament, but expressed its willingness to accept him as the general head of the British Empire, and implored him to protect them from the usurpations of Parliament and the Ministry. On October 26th, it adjourned after passing a resolution to meet in 1775 if the justice sought had not been granted.⁷ On that same day, the Colonial Assembly of Massachusetts, which had been dissolved by the Governor on September 28th, met, voted themselves a Provincial Congress, adopted a scheme for the militia, appointed several general officers, as well as a Committee of Safety to organize the militia, commission the officers and direct their operations in the field, and a Committee of Supplies to procure arms and ammunition.⁸

In 1775 the Committee of Safety appointed by the Second Provincial Congress was composed of eleven members, with authority to raise and support such a military force as was deemed necessary to resist the executions of the Acts of Parliament. In compliance with the powers so conferred, the committee proceeded to organize companies and regiments throughout the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and one-third of the militia, classed as minute men, agreed to hold themselves in readiness to respond at a minute's notice.⁹ These crude preparations were interrupted by the engagements at Concord and Lexington, which ushered in the American Revolution.

THE EARLY CAMPAIGNS OF THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR

Reproduced by permission of Rand, McNally and Company from E. G. Foster's Illustrative Historical Maps.

CHAPTER II

THE WAR OF THE REVOLUTION

ON April 19, 1775, 800 British, sent to destroy the stores at Concord, Mass., were fired upon by some provincials at Lexington, but succeeded in carrying out their mission. A fight at the bridge at Concord ensued, ending in the retreat of the British which developed into a rout, but at Lexington some semblance of order was restored by Lord Percy, who had hurried up with re-enforcements. The British then fell back twenty miles to Boston, their retreat much hampered by the increasing number of Colonial minute-men. The latter lost but 93 men, whereas their adversaries counted 273 men out of action.¹

Three days later, April 22nd, the initial step was taken to organize a combined defence against England, when the Massachusetts Assembly passed a unanimous resolution that a force of 30,000 men was needed for the defence of that colony, and decided that 13,000 men should be raised at once, trusting that the remainder would be furnished by the other New England colonies.² The organization of these hasty levies was accomplished by giving a captain's commission to any one enrolling a company of fifty-nine men and a colonel's commission for a regiment composed of ten such companies. This system, which made the ability to raise men the sole qualification for command, is emphasized for the reason that it has persisted until recent times, and was invariably employed at the beginning of all our wars down to the War of the Rebellion.³

The engagement at Concord and Lexington was the signal for the assembling near Boston of the militia and minute-men of all the New England colonies, and on June 17th these half-organized troops under General Artemas Ward fought the battle of Bunker Hill, under a common commander whom they recognized by common courtesy only. Three assaults were made on the breastworks and redoubt held by the colonists,⁴ resulting in a loss to the British of 89 officers and 965 men, a total in killed and wounded nearly 50 percent greater than in any subsequent action of the war. The American casualties were confined to 449 in all, and occurred, for the major part, during the retreat across Charlestown Neck after their ammunition had given out.⁵

The gallantry of defence was due to the fact that the entrenchments were constructed under the supervision of, and the American troops commanded by, veteran officers in whom the men had the utmost confidence. It rendered Gage's victory so costly and proved such a surprise that the British were reduced to the defensive for nearly a year.⁶ As General Upton pertinently remarks,

The lesson to be learned from this remarkable conflict is the value of trained officers in command of raw troops, a lesson which neither our statesmen nor our historians have ever been able to appreciate,

and he goes on to say that

without pausing to discover the secret of the defense of Bunker Hill, the mistaken conviction seized the public mind that the militia were invincible and that patriotism was the sole qualification for a soldier's calling—a fallacy which paralyzed the military legislation of the Revolution and constantly jeopardized our liberties by inducing the political leaders of the time to rely too confidently upon raw and undisciplined levies.⁷

Meanwhile, on May 10th, the fort at Ticonderoga had been captured by a force of Colonials under Ethan Allen, and on the same day the Second Continental Congress assembled at Philadelphia. The Revolution had then assumed such headway as to force that body to exercise the functions of civil government, and it promptly assumed not only legislative but executive powers. Finding itself not clothed with authority to levy taxes or raise revenue, it was obliged to emit bills of credit, the redemption of which was pledged by the twelve United Colonies. The financial system thus inaugurated, having no other basis than public faith in the eventual success of the American cause, virtually neutralized the power to create and support armies. Local interests, passions, and prejudices soon became paramount and, as a result of the feeble and exhaustive military policy followed, Congress was finally reduced to the helplessness of an advisory body, bereft of power to call out or support a single soldier save with the assistance and concurrence of the colonies—all of which could have been prevented had Congress been clothed with sovereign authority to utilize the entire resources of the country.⁸ Military legislation was thus made from the very start to depend mainly upon the collective wisdom of an assembly of men who, as far as their individual experience was concerned, were wholly devoid of military knowledge—a state of affairs which, in many instances, has prevailed in Congress until the present day.

Shortly after the troops arrived in the vicinity of Boston prior to the battle of Bunker Hill, it became evident that the struggle would not be confined to the New England colonies alone, and that, in order to prevent the disintegration and dispersal of the force already collected, it would have to be adopted as a Continental Army owing allegiance to the United Colonies exclusively.³ Accordingly, on June 14, 1775, Congress authorized the raising of ten companies of riflemen in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia, the term of enlistment being fixed at one year. These were the first troops raised under the authority of the United Colonies with the title of The American Continental Army, and they formed the nucleus of the forces which eventually achieved American independence. On the following day, George Washington was appointed Commander-in-Chief, and on July 3rd he assumed command at Cambridge, Mass., of the army investing Boston, numbering 17,000 men, every one of whose enlistments was to expire before the end of the year. On July 18th, Congress recommended

"to the inhabitants of the United English Colonies that all ablebodied, effective men, between 16 and 50 years of age, be formed into companies of militia⁹ . . . That the officers of each company be chosen by the respective companies,"

and, imitating the action of the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, passed the following resolution:

That one-fourth part of the militia be selected as minute-men of such men as are willing to enter into this necessary service, formed into companies and battalions, and their officers chosen and commissioned as aforesaid, to be ready at shortest notice to march to any place where their assistance may be required for the defense of their own or neighboring colony.¹⁰

This measure is of special interest in that it was our first scheme of mobilization.¹¹

Three days later, July 21st, Congress authorized Washington to maintain in the vicinity of Boston such a force as he thought necessary, provided it did not exceed 22,000 men, and on July 25th it fixed the number of troops for the Northern Department, New York, at 5,000. In organizing these troops on a Continental basis, commissions signed in blank by the President of Congress were sent to the various colonies to be filled out with the necessary names.¹² During the course of the year Congress gradually increased the size of the Continental Army, but, nourishing hopes for an early peace, could not be induced to prolong the term of enlistment beyond 1776.

Notwithstanding the power vested in him, Washington found himself compelled, on account of the slowness with which the recruits presented themselves,¹³ to call for 5,000 militia and minute-men to replace the troops whose enlistments would expire on December first.¹⁴ General Schuyler in New York experienced great difficulty in this respect with the New England troops,¹⁵ while Washington had his patience sorely tried by the Connecticut contingent which decamped the instant its service expired.¹⁶ Those who are familiar with our military history will not be surprised at the conduct of these Connecticut troops. Each succeeding year of the Revolutionary struggle found American soldiers behaving in like manner; and during the War of the Rebellion a similar course was followed by the regiments whose terms of service expired on the morning of the first battle of Bull Run.¹⁷ The officers too gave Washington an immense deal of unnecessary trouble,¹⁸ and Congress found itself compelled to provide new troops to replace those whose terms would expire before the year was out,¹⁹ as well as to recommend to the various colonial legislatures that punishment be inflicted upon persons harbouring deserters, whose number was rapidly augmenting.²⁰ Desertion is an evil inseparable from the method of bounties which was then beginning to be introduced, and it must be distinctly remembered that any system of voluntary enlistments necessarily places a government in the position of a suppliant, and when patriotism and popular enthusiasm no longer suffice to fill the ranks, resort must be had to the vicious practice of giving bounties to recruits. Recognizing the danger of admitting such a principle, Congress passed a resolution on December 6, 1775, That the charge of bounty in the account exhibited by Rhode Island against the United Colonies be not allowed. Yet in spite of this disapproval, bounties were paid throughout the Revolution, producing both endless trouble and discontent just as they did during the War of the Rebellion.²¹

Irrespective of the necessity, however great, of employing untrained troops, history demonstrates that needless extravagance, frequently attended by inaction and disaster, is the inevitable result. This was the case during the Campaign of 1775. The only military operations of the army about Boston that year were confined to the battles of Concord, Lexington and Bunker Hill, all fought before any of the troops were taken into Continental pay. As Upton points out:²²

When Washington took command his army numbered 17,000 men, but the number fit for duty did not exceed 14,500. The strength of the enemy was estimated by the council of war at 11,500; but after deducting the sick and wounded his real effective strength was not over 6,500. Notwithstanding this disparity in numbers neither Washington nor his generals deemed it prudent to attack, and the year passed away in hopeless inactivity.

The only important offensive operation was the invasion of Canada by two distinct forces; one, composed of 3,000 troops under Generals Schuyler and Montgomery, assembled at Ticonderoga in August, but the former's ill-health compelled him to relinquish his command, while the latter, after spending weeks in reducing the fort at St. John's, eventually occupied Montreal on November 12th.²³ The other expedition, undertaken at the instigation of a Congressional committee, was composed of 1,100 men under General Benedict Arnold. Leaving Cambridge on September 17th, it embarked at Newport on the 19th, reached Gardner, Maine, on the 20th and started for Quebec three days later. After untold hardships during the march through the Maine wilderness, Arnold arrived at Port Levis, opposite Quebec, on November 9th, with his force reduced to 750 men. A storm lasting three days suspended further operations, but, on the 14th, spurred on by the necessity of action, largely because of the approaching expiration of the terms of enlistment of nearly all his men,²⁴ Arnold repeated Wolfe's feat in climbing the steep ascent and demanded the surrender of the city. The British garrison had meanwhile been re-enforced to 2,000 and the Americans were compelled on the 19th to retire to Point-aux-Trembles, where they were joined by Montgomery on December first, the combined forces not exceeding 1,000 men. A second demand for surrender (December 6th) and a feeble bombardment proving equally ineffectual, it was resolved on the 16th to assault the place, but it was not until the night of the thirtieth, when but one day of legal service remained for a large portion of the troops, that the preparations were complete.²⁵ On the last day of the year a desperate attack was made; Montgomery was killed, Arnold badly wounded, 60 men were dead or hors de combat and 426 were captured. The invasion of Canada thus ended in a hopeless disaster²⁶ and, except for Bunker Hill, virtually nothing had been achieved by the Americans.

The total number of troops in Continental pay during the campaign of 1775, as appears from the report of the Secretary of War, Henry Knox, submitted to Congress in 1790, was 27,443. In addition to the above, it is estimated that the colonies of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, furnished 10,180 militia, making the whole American Army 37,623. For the most part this force, from want of supplies, organization, and discipline, was maintained at public expense in a state of demoralizing inactivity.²⁷

The events of the year 1775 have been dwelt upon at considerable length for the reason that they, like those of the entire Revolution, are necessary for an intelligent understanding of our subsequent military history. The seeds of the vicious military policy sown in those years have been reaped during every succeeding generation. We shall also have occasion to make frequent quotations from Washington's correspondence because he, as the commander-in-chief and the principal figure of the Revolution, was called upon to combat every single mistake in the military policy of that time. No other person was in a better position than he to pass judgment upon this all-important subject, and his comments are today quite as worthy of legislative consideration as when they were originally written.

THE CAMPAIGN OF 1776

Up to January 14, 1776, out of the 20,370 troops authorized by Congress three months before, only 10,500 had been enlisted and many of these had not joined.²⁸ Washington, despairing of raising the army by voluntary enlistments, wrote to the General Court of Massachusetts on January 16th suggesting the employment of coercive measures to maintain the regiments at their proper strength. On the same day he proposed to the council of war an attack on the British at Boston before they could be re-enforced and, upon the council of war's agreeing, it was recommended that 13 regiments of militia be called into service until April first.²⁹ On February 9th, he wrote a remarkable letter to Congress on the subject of the evils, dangers and extravagance of short enlistments, in which he said:

"The disadvantages attending the limited enlistment of troops are too apparent to those who are eyewitnesses of them to render any animadversions necessary, but to gentlemen at a distance whose attention is engrossed by a thousand important objects the case may be otherwise. That this cause precipitated the fate of the brave and much to be lamented General Montgomery, and brought on the defeat which followed thereupon, I have not the most distant doubt, for, had he not been apprehensive of the troops leaving him at so important a crisis, but continued to blockade Quebec, a capitulation, from the best accounts I have been able to collect, must inevitably have followed . . .

"The instance of General Montgomery (I mention it because it is a striking one, for a number of others might be adduced) proves that instead of having men to take advantage of circumstances you are in a manner compelled, right or wrong, to make circumstances yield to a secondary consideration . . .

WASHINGTON'S CAMPAIGNS

Reproduced by permission of Rand, McNally and Company from E. G. Foster's Illustrative Historical Maps.

"To bring men to be well acquainted with the duties of a soldier requires time. To bring them under proper discipline and subordination not only requires time, but it is a work of great difficulty, and in this army, where there is so little distinction between the officers and soldiers, requires an uncommon degree of attention. TO EXPECT, then, THE SAME SERVICE FROM RAW AND UNDISCIPLINED RECRUITS AS FROM VETERAN SOLDIERS IS TO EXPECT WHAT NEVER DID AND PERHAPS NEVER WILL HAPPEN . . ."³⁰

Washington, re-enforced by certain militia, occupied Dorchester Heights on March 4th, threw up two redoubts and took steps which brought about the evacuation of Boston by the British on the 17th.³¹ Appreciating that New York would be the next objective point, he hastened to send five regiments to its defence and on April 13th arrived there himself with nearly all his army. Congress immediately required him to send four, and later six, additional regiments—3,000 men—to Canada to re-enforce the troops near Quebec. His army, thus scattered and divided, was reduced to 5,300 Continentals,³² leaving him no alternative except to depend upon militia enlisted for short periods only. Such was the force with which he was expected to confront a disciplined British army numbering from 20,000 to 30,000.

Congress at last awoke to the gravity of the situation in June, called out 6,000 militia to re-enforce the troops in Canada,³³ authorized 13,800 to strengthen Washington,³⁴ and created a flying camp to be located in New Jersey;³⁵ but in spite of Washington's reiterated recommendations, the enlistments of all these troops was to expire on December first. As General Upton aptly remarks,³⁶

The slow increase of the Continental Army shows that Congress was committed to a dual military establishment, one class of troops being Continental or regular, the other militia. In the former the gradual extension of enlistments to two and three years enabled the men to acquire the discipline which ultimately proved the salvation of our cause. The natural disposition of men to seek the easiest and shortest service prompted them to enlist in the militia in preference to the Continental regiments, and thus the only force which could be depended upon to cope with the British, both offensively and defensively, was always from one-third to one-half below its prescribed strength.

On July 4th³⁷ the Declaration of Independence was adopted and the time for speedy action in expelling the British had come, but the lesson that raw troops cannot prevail against disciplined regulars had apparently not been learned. On August 27th was fought the battle of Long Island between Lord Howe's force of fully 20,000 men³⁸ and about 8,000 under Washington, all that he could muster out of an army whose paper strength was 27,000.³⁹ The logical result followed; the Americans were badly beaten and on the 30th retreated to New York,⁴⁰ where Washington wrote on September 2nd to the President of Congress that

"no dependence could be put in a militia or other troops than those enlisted and embodied for a longer period than our regulations heretofore have prescribed. I am persuaded, and as fully convinced as I am of any one fact that has happened, that our liberties must of necessity be greatly hazarded, if not entirely lost, if their defense is left to any but a permanent standing army; I mean one to exist during the war. Nor would the expense incident to the support of such a body of troops as would be competent to almost every exigency far exceed that which is daily incurred by calling in succor and new enlistments, which when effected are not attended with any good consequences."⁴¹

On September 15th the British occupied New York, after a spirited engagement ending in the retreat of the Americans to Harlem Heights, the brigades of Parsons and Fellows running away in the most disgraceful fashion.⁴² On the 24th Washington wrote some plain truths to the President of Congress, declaring that

"To place any dependence upon militia is assuredly resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender scenes of domestic life, unaccustomed to the din of arms, totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill (which is followed by want of confidence in themselves when opposed by troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in arms), are timid and ready to fly from their own shadows.

"Besides, the sudden change in their manner of living, particularly in their lodgings, brings on sickness in many, impatience in all, and such an unconquerable desire of returning to their respective homes that it not only produces shameful and scandalous desertions among themselves, but infuses the like spirit in others.⁴ Again, men accustomed to unbounded freedom and no control can not brook the restraint which is indispensably necessary to the good order and government of an army, without which licentiousness and every kind of disorder triumphantly reign. To bring men to a proper degree of subordination is not the work of a day, a month, or even a year . . . Certain I am that it would be cheaper to keep 50,000 to 100,000 in constant pay than to depend upon half the number and supply the other half occasionally by militia.⁵ The time the latter are in pay before and after they are in camp, assembling and marching, the waste of ammunition, the consumption of stores, which, in spite of every resolution or requisition of Congress, they must be furnished with or sent home, added to other incidental expenses consequent upon their coming and conduct in camp, surpass all idea and destroy every kind of regularity and economy which you could establish among fixed and settled troops, and will, in my opinion, prove, if the scheme is adhered to, the ruin of our cause."⁴³

The bugbear of militarism which had already taken possession of Congress, Washington dismissed by continuing thus:

"The jealousy of a standing army and the evils to be apprehended from one, are remote, and, in my judgment, situated as we are, not at all to be dreaded; but the consequence of wanting one, according to my ideas formed from the present view of things, is certain and inevitable ruin. For, if I was called upon to declare upon oath whether the militia had been most serviceable or hurtful, upon the whole I should subscribe to the latter. . . . Experience, which is the best criterion to work by, so fully, clearly, and decisively reprobates the practice of trusting to militia that no man who regards order, regularity, and economy, or who has any regard for his own honor, character, or peace of mind, will risk them upon this issue."⁴⁴

Congress had at last begun to realize that there existed a good and sufficient ground for the complaints of the commander-in-chief, and several resolutions passed that year showed that it appreciated the importance of enlisting men FOR THE WAR,⁴⁵ but, upon ascertaining that the uncertainty as to its duration was having a detrimental effect, it modified its terms so as to permit enlistments to be for three years or for the war, at the discretion of the recruit.⁴⁶ In the former case, a bounty of $20 was given; in the latter $20 and 100 acres of land—a procedure quite in keeping with other legislative enactments on that score during 1776,⁴⁷ which resulted in the States bidding against Congress for men and ended by creating an enormous and most unnecessary debt.⁶ In the case of the officers, too, this rivalry wrought incalculable harm by depriving the commander-in-chief of anything except a nominal control over them.⁴⁸

The military events subsequent to the occupation of Harlem Heights can be quickly told. On October 12th, General Howe began his operations to cut Washington off from New England and upper New York.⁴⁹ The latter for want of good troops retreated to White Plains, where an action was fought on the 28th to the advantage of the British. Washington then fell back to North Castle Heights, from which he could not be dislodged, and the British returned to New York, capturing Fort Washington and 2,000 prisoners on November 16th, and caused the evacuation of Fort Lee four days later. Howe then resumed the offensive in New Jersey, and by December 8th not an American soldier remained in the State, Washington, with his army reduced to 3,305,⁵⁰ being powerless to make even a show of resistance, while the militia and other troops of the flying camp were disbanding.⁵¹ On the 26th he surprised the Hessians at Trenton, captured about 1,000, losing only five men himself,⁵² and two days later occupied the town.

NORTHERN CAMPAIGNS OF THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR

Reproduced by permission of Rand, McNally and Company from E. G. Foster's Illustrative Historical Maps.

With the exception of the repulse of the British under Clinton at Fort Moultrie, Charleston, South Carolina, on June 28th, this brilliant action at Trenton was the only victory of which the Americans could boast during 1776, notwithstanding 46,901 Continental or Regular troops and 42,760 militia, a total of 89,661, were called out during the year⁵³ to oppose a British force which never equalled half that number.⁵⁴ Congress in its alarm over the almost total dissolution of the army, the rapid advance of the British through New Jersey and the capture of the capital, Philadelphia, which was momentarily expected, not only voted an increase of 110 battalions,⁵⁵ but vested in Washington complete power for a period of six months to raise 16 additional battalions of infantry, 3,000 light horse, 3 regiments of artillery and a corps of engineers, as well as certain other extraordinary authority.⁵⁶ That the sovereign body was willing—indeed eager—to pass a resolution so fraught with danger to the future liberties of the States and to clothe even a Washington with the absolute power of a dictator affords ample proof that the blundering policy pursued since the beginning of the Revolution was recognised after nearly two years to be utterly inadequate and worthless under the stress of military crisis.

THE CAMPAIGN OF 1777

After a victory at Princeton on January 3rd, Washington's army took up its winter quarters at Morristown, its strength on March 14th being under 3,000,⁵⁷ while the British had more than 20,000 veterans in the vicinity of New York. The operations ending in June, when the enemy evacuated New Jersey, were little more than skirmishes, since Washington did not dare to give or receive battle.⁵⁸ The army was in a sorry plight and payments were made in paper money, which rapidly depreciated. Again Congress resorted to raw levies,⁵⁹ found itself greatly embarrassed by the bounty system which it had inaugurated,⁶⁰ was obliged to introduce territorial recruitment⁶¹ and to grant dictatorial powers to Washington for a second time.⁶² So apparent did the insufficiency of Congressional measures⁶³ become that, before the year was out, Virginia and Massachusetts had to set the example of drafting—a method which Washington recommended to the President of Pennsylvania as the only certain way of obtaining Continental troops.⁶⁴

The arrival of the Marquis de Lafayette, who was commissioned a Major General on July 31st, afforded the struggling colonies some temporary encouragement, but early in that month General Howe transported the British forces at New York⁶⁵ to the Chesapeake and, moving north, reached Elkton, 54 miles from Philadelphia, on August 28th. On September 11th Washington was defeated at the battle of the Brandywine,⁶⁶ and sixteen days later Howe occupied Philadelphia. On October 4th he endeavoured to surprise the camp at Germantown, but without success, and after some minor actions withdrew to winter quarters at Valley Forge.⁶⁷ Meanwhile a splendid success had crowned the American arms at Saratoga, where Burgoyne and his force⁶⁸ surrendered to General Gates⁶⁹ on October 17th,⁷⁰ but the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union creating the United States of America, which had been in force since July but were not definitely agreed upon until November 15th, did not augur well for the future from a military standpoint since

"instead of resting the war power in a central government, which alone could insure its vigorous exercise, Congress was reduced to a mere consultative body or congress of diplomats, with authority to concert only such measures for common defense as might receive the sanction of the allied sovereignties they represented. . . .⁷¹

Weak as had been our military policy under the government of the Continental Congress, it was to become still more imbecile through the inherent defects of the new system. To the indecision and delays of a single Congress were now superadded the indecisions and delays of at least nine more deliberative bodies.⁷²

Small wonder that in spite of the employment of 34,820 Continentals and at least 33,900 militia, a total of 68,720,⁷³ the results achieved during 1777 should have been so meagre, and the straits to which Washington and his slender force of half-clad, half-starved men at Valley Forge were reduced were an indelible blot upon American history.

THE CAMPAIGN OF 1778

The winter spent at Valley Forge was the acme of human misery and discouragement, received only by the heroic spirit manifested by officers and men alike and by the much-needed reforms in tactics, regulations and discipline introduced by Baron von Steuben, a veteran of the wars of Frederick the Great,⁷⁴ who had been appointed Inspector General. The army numbered less than 10,000, but, as none of the battalions during the preceding year had been recruited to much more than one-third of their proper strength, Congress, in consequence of the report of a committee sent in January to examine into the conditions at Valley Forge,⁷⁵ recommended on February 6th that the States draft men for nine months, with the proviso that they could be replaced as fast as men enlisting for three years were received.⁷⁶ Notwithstanding this drastic measure,⁷⁷ the entire Continental force at the beginning of May numbered only about 15,000,⁷⁸ whereas the British had more than 33,000 effectives.⁷⁹ On May 7th the tattered troops were assembled on parade and the treaty of alliance with France was read amid wild enthusiasm.⁷ On the following day the council of war unanimously decided, in view of the slenderness of the force and the expectation of assistance, to remain on the defensive and to let events take their course.

Even before that time the officers had begun to resign their commissions in disgust,⁸⁰ and this state of affairs rapidly progressed to such an alarming extent that Congress was compelled on May 15th to pass a resolution giving to all officers serving to the end of the war half pay for seven years and a gratuity of $80 to non-commissioned officers and men. The enlistment of deserters, in order to fill the quotas required by the resolution of February 6th, became so prevalent that Congress was obliged to denounce it, but the desire to get men so as to avoid the draft led to another expedient, and in Rhode Island the proposal was made to enlist a battalion of slaves.⁸¹ Another difficulty, almost as grave as the non-enlistment of recruits, militated against the maintenance of a proper army. Since the beginning of the Revolution paper money had been steadily issued, but by 1778 it had so depreciated in value that it had become literally impossible for officers to support themselves and their families on their pay—indeed, as Washington declared, they were sinking by sure degrees into beggary and want.⁸² Nations collectively are fully equal to keeping up a protracted struggle, but individuals often shirk the privations and dangers of war.⁸ The bounties first offered by Congress and the States were tantamount to a confession of this truth, which was only too palpably confirmed by each subsequent campaign. Unable to check this calamity, Congress now endeavoured to conceal it and on September 18th it resolved

"That General Washington be authorized, if he shall judge it for the interest of the United States, to augment the Continental bounty to recruits, enlisting for three years or during